Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

A Bad Sign:  Macy's vs. Amazon Billboard Battle

12/4/2021

24 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

With the holiday shopping season in full swing, many consumers are unaware of two titan retailers’ battle over a billboard, the results of which could impact how and where shoppers buy gifts for years to come.  The clash also could impact what businesses come to accept as moral behavior.
 
The site of the showdown is the corner of 34th Street and Broadway, New York City, at the center of U.S. commerce.  It’s there that Macy’s, which once boasted “the worlds’ largest retail store,” is taking what could be a final stand against the encroachment of Earth’s fastest-growing retailer, and one of nature’s most irrepressible forces:  Amazon.
 
Macy’s has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, hoping to keep its close competitor from commandeering a 2,200 square foot billboard that adjoins Macy’s flagship Herald Square store.  It’s a signage space Macy’s has leased for nearly 60 years.
 
The huge billboard, which features Macy’s iconic star and logo typeface set against the familiar bright red background, serves as a beacon for millions of pedestrians and potential shoppers as they walk north on Broadway and west on 34th Street.  Millions more see the sign every November in countless camera shots during the retailer’s world-renowned Thanksgiving Day Parade.
 
Amazon, an organization that can send astronauts into orbit, is capable of just about anything, but how could even it endeavor to place its name on a billboard on the side of such a storied competitor’s flagship store?
 
Key to the controversy is the fact that Macy’s doesn’t own the building on which the billboard rests; the sign is actually attached to a small separate edifice situated just between the retailer’s massive 2.2 million sq. ft. store and the intersection.  The owner of the tiny architectural interloper and its very valuable billboard is Kaufman Realty Corp.
 
With the contract it signed in 1963 expiring, Macy’s asked Kaufman to renew its billboard ad, but the company told its long-standing tenant that it intended to rent the space to a “prominent online retailer”—one who apparently has deep pockets and who most believe is Amazon.
 
Of course, both Macy’s and Amazon have physical stores and virtual ones; yet, Macy’s is in many ways the quintessential brick-and-mortar retailer while Amazon practically owns online shopping.
 
In a very real way, therefore, the billboard battle represents a titanic clash of competing marketing channels and business models, the results of which could impact consumer shopping behavior for years to come, as well as set important moral precedent.
 
Macy’s firmly believes that its loss of the advertising space, next to its flagship store, would be disastrous, as the suit it filed states, “The damages to Macy's customer goodwill, image, reputation and brand, should a 'prominent online retailer' (especially Amazon) advertise on the billboard are impossible to calculate.”
 
With net income that’s exceeded $1 billion for eight of the last ten years, Macy’s is doing well compared to many retailers, especially those that filed for bankruptcy over the last 18 months, e.g., Lord & Taylor, J.C. Penney, J Crew, Neiman Marcus, and Pier 1.
 
However, Macy’s profit margin for 2020 was a modest 2.9%.  Amazon, in contrast, had net income of $21.3 billion on revenue of $386 billion, giving it not only much greater earnings but also a significantly higher rate of return—5.5%.
 
So, although Macy’s is not quite on the cusp, it’s certainly not operating from a position of power versus Amazon, and it truly can’t afford to see its flagship store, which it’s described as its “most valuable asset,” take a serious financial hit.

However, a hit on Macy’s Herald Square store and its effect on the future of retail is only one concern of the billboard battle:  Amazon’s aggressive competitive tactic is also a breach of business’s moral bulwark.
 
Of course, Amazon has a right to buy any billboard it wants, but a key question is why the firm needs to buy that one.
 
According to Statista, there are over 340,000 billboards, or “big format outdoor displays,” in the United States.  Just a ten-minute walk north of Herald Square lies Time Square, which has probably the greatest display of outdoor advertising in the world.
 

Picture

Granted, a sign in this spectacle of commercialism comes at a very high cost: between $5,000 and $50,000 a day, which could mean as much as $18.25 million a year.  Still, that amount of money is almost immaterial to the one of the world’s richest companies.
 
As of December 31, 2020, Amazon’s balance sheet showed cash and cash equivalents of $41.2 billion.  Even a $50,000-a-day billboard would represent less than half of one percent of those liquid assets (just 0.0445%).
 
So, if hundreds of thousands of large outdoor signs are available and Amazon can afford to rent any billboard it wants, why does it have to have the one in Herald Square that’s adjacent to one of its biggest competitor’s flagship stores?

It’s reasonable to infer an intent to attack the heart of Macy’s operations, to steal shoppers from in front of its landmark store, and perhaps even to embarrass the firm before its own customers.
 
Some might respond to such assertions of over-the-top aggression with, “That’s business,” or “Amazon is just being competitive,” or “The company is playing to win.”  There’s a difference, though, between working hard to win and trying menacingly to make others lose.  Unfortunately, Amazon’s billboard-buy seems like the latter.
 
Growing up, I loved to play sports and considered myself a pretty competitive person—I wanted to win and tried my hardest to do so.  Although I didn’t like losing, I could tolerate it—it wasn’t the end of the world—especially if I played my best and the other person/team simply outperformed me.
 
By the same token, I never liked the idea of trying to sabotage or subvert opposing players’ performance.  Instead, I thought, “Let them do their best, and I’ll do my best, and whosever best is better deserves to win.”  I didn’t have to come out on top every time; I could ‘share the podium.’  Part of competing was knowing how to win and lose graciously.
 
In contrast, some individuals and organizations compete as if it’s all or nothing, and they have to have it all, all the time.  They’ve no sense that ‘the market's big, so there’s plenty of business for everyone.’
 
Maybe it’s because of the holidays that this self-obsessed way of thinking reminds me of the Christmas classic It’s a Wonderful Life--specifically the film’s antagonist, the greedy and scheming Mr. Potter.  Although he and his bank already own half of Bedford Falls, he won’t rest until it’s all under his control, not tolerating even a minor amount of competition from George Bailey’s small Building & Loan. No one else can win; he has to have it all.
 

Picture

My guess is that Mr. Potter would be proud of  Amazon’s attempt to pry the Herald Square billboard lease away from Macy’s.
 
Macy’s is no real threat to Amazon, which can afford any outdoor advertising it wants and doesn’t need to have that specific sign.  So, why go after it?  It seems like Amazon doesn’t want anyone else to win; it has to have it all.
 
Macy’s lawsuit claims that all past and present agreements have prohibited the billboard’s owner from ever leasing the space to any other “establishment selling at retail or directly to any consumer.”  If that claim is true and Macy’s is offering Kaufman Realty fair compensation for the lease, Macy’s has even more reason to believe its treatment is unreasonable.
 
Competition is not only necessary, it’s desirable, as it both benefits consumers and sharpens industry rivals.  However, when organizations like Amazon enlist predatory business practices, their strategies are a sign of “Single-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
24 Comments

Will the Metaverse be Meta-Worse?

11/7/2021

6 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

A name change is seldom a small thing.  It’s especially significant when one of the world’s most valuable companies decides to rebrand.  Facebook’s move to “Meta” offers an important signal about the firm’s future focus, which promises to impact billions of people who regularly sign onto its social media platforms.  The idea of a ‘metaverse’ sounds exciting, but will it really be a better place?
 
The recent decision of the planet’s most widely used social media platform to rename itself Meta surprised many; yet, it’s a move we’ve witnessed before, one of the most notable happening in 2015 when Google grew into Alphabet.
 
Like Google, Facebook would never do something as rash as discard one of the world’s most valuable  brands.  Rather, the company recognized that by retaining the Facebook name for just the specific social media platform and renaming the umbrella corporation Meta, the company’s expansion would be much more free from perceptual constraints.
 
Moreover, Meta might stimulate a whole new world of virtual possibilities.  According to the New York Times, the move encapsulates CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s plan to “refocus his Silicon Valley company on what he sees as the next digital frontier, which is the unification of disparate digital worlds into something called the metaverse.”
 
Wasn’t ‘unifying disparate digital worlds’ what Facebook did when it allowed users to link the platform to their Instagram accounts?  In a manner of speaking it was, but the metaverse purports to be much, much more.

So, what exactly is the metaverse?
 
Despite its sudden popularity, the concept is not one that’s easy to define, mainly because “it doesn’t necessarily exist”; rather, it’s “a dream for the future.”  It’s also hard to get a handle on the metaverse because, like the Internet, it’s not a singular product that Facebook or any one company can build alone.
 
Crypto game developer Andrei Shulgach, who spends several hours each day in the meta-space doing research for metaverse-related projects, affirms the concept’s evolving and evasive meaning:
 
“For the past four years, the term metaverse has mainly been a buzzword without a defined meaning, and even now it is often used ambiguously. For instance, there's a distinction between the gaming metaverse and the metaverse as a whole.”
 
To the end of reducing the ambiguity, here’s how some have described the metaverse:
  • “a variety of virtual experiences, environments, and assets”
  • “a framework for an extremely connected life”
  • “a 3D virtual world inhabited by avatars of real people”
  • “a set of virtual spaces where you can create and explore with other people who aren’t in the same physical space as you”
  • “a multiverse which interoperates more with the real world, incorporating things like augmented reality overlays, VR dressing rooms for real stores, and even apps like Google Maps.”
  • “a future digital world that feels more tangibly connected to our real lives and bodies.” 
Picture

If it’s challenging just to understand what the metaverse is, it’s even more difficult to estimate its moral impact.  As Facebook and a slew of other organizations aim to engage us in their own region of the new ream, it’s important to ask:
 
To what extent will the metaverse be a force for good?
 
For those who don’t now frequent the metaverse, cynicism may be the understandable reaction, especially when some of the companies spearheading the change regularly make headlines for moral lapses like profiting from divisive content, playing fast and loose with data privacy, and allowing people to pummel others’ self-concepts.
 
There are undoubtedly more, but here are four main moral concerns related to the metaverse:
 
1. Time sink:  Whether it’s watching hours of TikTok videos or compulsively checking one’s Facebook feed, social media has already become a time waster for many, so one can only imagine how an even more immersive virtual experience might consume each waking hour.
 
2. Distraction:  In keeping with the first point, virtual worlds and avatars might also draw people’s attention away from what’s happening in the physical world around them, including relationships with flesh-and-blood people and resources that should be spent on real physical needs like food, clothing, and housing.
 
3. Safety:  Internet safety is already a perennial concern, especially for children.  Will even more complex and blended interaction, e.g., augmented reality, present new ways for predators to deceive and disadvantage vulnerable populations?
 
4. Accessibility:  As technology serves increasingly important functions in many of our lives, it’s easy to forget that not everyone has the same access, which can be because of limitations that are financial (affording hardware and related services), physical (seeing or hearing), cognitive (distinguishing the virtual form the physical).
 
These and other moral issues may be further complicated by what Shulgach has observed: “many companies jumping into the space, trying to ride the wave and catch an audience when they really have no experience or know what it takes to launch a successful metaverse project.” 
 
Yes, its cynical, but it’s also realistic to expect that at least some of these firms that are willing to overleverage their experience and expertise will also be inclined to undervalue ethical concerns.  We see some of that ambivalence now with the Internet--Why would the metaverse be any different?
 
However, that rhetorical question can also have a favorable frame:  Despite its flaws, the Internet has been a tremendously positive force for communication, work productivity, relationship-building, entertainment, and more--Why should the metaverse be any different?
 
As the metaverse continues to evolve, we’ll likely witness increasingly positive outcomes such as:
  • Organizations using the metaverse to train employees and serve customers, all while saving time and conserving other resources
  • Individuals finding even more interesting and engaging opportunities for information, education, and entertainment
  • People forming meaningful relationships with others who they otherwise would have never known.

Shulgach, who actively works within the game industry metaverse with others, has a vision for a metaverse that makes such a positive impact:
 
“
The idea of connecting users through virtual worlds, and digital economies powered by crypto and NFTs with real-world effects, is crucial for what the metaverse will be defined as in the future. This is an incredible opportunity to re-define and innovate the way we interact with each other moving forward.”
 
Like many things in life, the metaverse is a kind of tool.  Whether a tool is something as simple as a hammer or as complex as a car, most can be used for either good or bad—the outcomes depend on the motivation of the user.
 
The metaverse is a collection of tools that together form a mechanism unlike any other.  It’s wishful thinking to believe that every user of the tool will actively consider its moral impact, but hopefully many will, if not most.  There’s no reason that metaverse marketing can’t be “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
6 Comments

Gen Z Students Teach Their Professor About Thrifting

9/10/2021

28 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

Remember the excitement of your first time wearing a new jacket or pair of shoes?  Did you wonder how the original owner felt when they wore them?  You probably didn’t unless you’ve been part of one of the hottest consumer trends--thrifting.  For a variety of reasons, it’s now fashionable, especially among Generation Z, to shop secondhand, but this Gen X marketing professor wonders if it’s smart for the apparel industry to embrace a fad that may dissuade people from purchasing its new products.
 
Scanning my marketing news feeds a couple of months ago, a headline caught my eye, “Letter from Gen Z:  Why thrifting is the future of fashion.”  Thinking it was a bold prediction, I saved the article to discuss with my fall classes.  The semester started, I shared the piece, and I’m stunned how passionate so many students are about thrifting!
 
However, on the first day of Personal Selling class, before I even mentioned the article, I asked each person to ‘sell us on something important to you.’  With great enthusiasm, a student named Brooke shared how much she enjoyed thrifting.  Her tremendous passion for the practice was obvious to all, and very surprising to me.
 
My impression had long been that shopping for secondhand items was something mostly people on very limited budgets did out of necessity, to save money.  Similarly, those who did frequent aftermarket sellers certainly wouldn’t brag about what they’d bought.  Apparently, that stigma has subsided, and college students, some of whom come from affluent families, are among those most active in propagating thrifting’s new-found popularity.
 
To get a better picture of thrifting behavior among college students, I created a brief online survey that I shared with my four classes; about 70 students completed it.  The results revealed some surprising behavior, for instance:
 
  • 70.4% of students had purchased used clothing three or more times, and 54.9% had done so seven or more times.
  • The most likely places to purchase used clothing were traditional thrift stores like Goodwill and Salvation Army (39.4%), followed by retailers and brands that sell both new and used clothes, such as H&M and Levi’s (33.8%), then consignment stores (22.5%), and finally flea-markets (7.1%).
  • The strongest motivations for buying used clothing were cost (49.3%), followed by fashion (16.9%), then desire for old/vintage (11.27%), then impact of influencers (2.8%), and last environmental concerns (1.4%).
 
Before the survey, I didn’t think that so many college students were actively thrifting.  To my surprise, only 9.9% of those who responded, said they’ve never purchased used clothing.  I was also surprised that the places they thrift are rather evenly distributed.
 
Comparing the two different findings, it’s remarkable that the percentage of those who are very likely to frequent even the least popular thrifting place, flea-markets (7.1%), is not much lower than the portion of people who have never thrifted (9.9%).
 
On one hand, seeing cost emerge as the top motivator for thrifting was not surprising; however, I had expected its percentage to be even higher, e.g., 90% or more—again, I always thought that saving money was the only reason people purchased used clothing.
 
As it turns out, the desires to be fashionable and to own old/vintage clothing were also very compelling.  Along those lines, I realized that my simple survey failed to ask about what may be one of the most important motivations!
 
At the end of the survey, an open-ended question invited respondents to share any other thoughts about thrifting.  Seventeen students seized the opportunity and offered responses that included the following:
  • “I love it so much!”
  • “I love to thrift and over half of my closet is thrifted.”
  • “Very cheap way of finding trendy clothes”
  • “It’s how I get 90% of my clothes.”
  • “I love that I can find articles of clothing that no one else is likely to have. Thrift finds are one of a kind. I also buy clothes from stores like Target, but my purchases [there] are not as unique [emphasis added] because other people have the ability to buy the same thing. Thrifting grants me a more unique [emphasis added] wardrobe!”
  • At least 50% of my clothes are thrifted, I absolutely love thrifting - both because it limits waste in the fashion industry and because it’s fun! [emphasis added]
 
The last two comments contained two words that were both eye-opening and full of marketing implications:


1) Unique:  I remember, not long ago, when young people wanted to look like everyone else.  To be one of the few people who didn’t have the popular brands of sneakers or jeans was often an ostracizing experience. 
 
Now it seems that many Gen Zers want to own clothing that not everyone else is wearing.  Moreover, items that are one-of-a-kind, like those that can be found through thrifting, are even better, as they help express individual identity, which mass marketed products can’t easily accomplish.


2) Fun:  In my thrifting survey, I kind of included a question about wanting unique clothing (“old/vintage”), but I completely overlooked the idea that members of Gen Z thrift because they enjoy the thrill of the experience.  

For many, thrifting is a kind of treasure hunt in which they may or may not know exactly what they’re looking for, and what they find may be a complete surprise.  It’s exciting for almost anyone to come across something special that others are unlikely to locate.
 
Both of these motives, as well as some of the others, are instrumental to the thrifting behavior of Brooke, introduced above, who has been buying secondhand products for 3-4 years and goes thrifting once every two or three weeks.  In those outings, Brooke has found used bargains on everything from American Eagle clothing, to Ugg boots, to Vera Bradley bookbags.
 
Cost is certainly a motivation for Brooke; in fact, she says she loves saving money and showing people the great buys she gets for ¾ of regular retail prices.  She also says that she now has “a hard time spending full price on clothing at retail stores.”  However, Brooke also enjoys the excitement of thrifting:
 
“I get a thrill in not knowing what I’m going to find. You don’t know if you’ll walk in and find brand new Nike shoes for $40 or Lululemon leggings for $30, and that’s the fun in thrift shopping, the unknowns.”
 
There’s little question that many members of Gen Z enjoy thrifting for a variety of reasons, but what can/should marketers do with that consumption behavior?  After all, most clothing brands are in the business of selling new clothes, not used ones.  Some, however, have found ways to do both, and apparently make money.
 
One of those brands is the iconic blue jean maker Levi’s, which has made an entire enterprise out of buying back and reselling its used denim.  The company runs a well-developed website, Levi’s SecondHand where it resells its classic jeans, jean shorts, denim jackets, and more.
​
Picture
 
Even though they’re used, the items aren’t cheap.  For instance, the site sells preowned men’s original fit 501 jeans for $38.  On a recent Labor Day sale, Macy’s offered the same jeans new for $41.70, or less than $4 more.  Levi’s used product site also sells Vintage 501 Shorts for a pricey $78 a pair.
 
However, a webpage that describes Levi’s SecondHand explains why someone would want to pay a premium for preowned: “Denim from past seasons that’s already beat-up and broken in. In other words, perfect.”—That sentiment is very similar to the survey finding mentioned above about generation Z liking clothes that are old, vintage, and unique.
 
The company also touts several other advantages of SecondHand, especially sustainability:
 
“If everybody bought one used item this year, instead of buying new, it would save 449 million pounds of waste.” 
 
“Levi’s SecondHand keeps coveted pieces in circulation. It’s all about connecting people to timeless styles they otherwise may not have found, and most importantly, saving clothing from going into a landfill. Old denim has never looked better.”  
 
A big question that remains is if selling secondhand is sustainable for Levi’s.  Sure, used denim may be what consumers want and what the environment needs, but can the company make money in the clothing aftermarket?  If not, the program has little potential.
 
Levi’s SecondHand isn’t yet a year old, so longevity is still not the best indicator.  However, if the company is successful selling some used products for only a few dollars less than they sell for new, and others for even more, it seems likely that the firm, free from manufacturing costs and with relatively little added overhead, must make a healthy margin on each piece and turn a profit on the program as a whole.  Interestingly, over the past year Levi’s stock price has increased significantly, from $12/share on September 21, 2020, to $26.50/share on September 6, 2021.
 
Can other clothing companies pull off a secondhand program like Levi’s?  Few have the history and brand equity that the iconic jean maker enjoys; however, consumers’ appetite for used clothing and the favorable cashflow suggested above serve as an invitation to other suppliers.  Furthermore, the fact that those who have entered the aftermarket include clothing retailers J.C. Penney, Macy’s, Madewell, and Nordstrom, as well as the furniture behemoth IKEA, suggests the viability of selling secondhand.
 
When you think about it, it’s not unusual for manufacturers and new product retailers to sell used products.  Auto dealerships have been doing so for a century or more.  Part of the reason people are willing to pay so much for new cars is that they know when they’re done driving them, someone else will buy them.  Whether it’s Levi’s or Lexus, high resale value is a hallmark of a strong brand.
 
Still, an important moral issue remains, which a second member of Gen Z brought to my attention.  Katie, also a marketing student of mine, helped me see that consumers have a responsibility to ‘thrift ethically.’  Inspired by a variety of posts she’d seen on Instagram and a visit to a thrift store in Colorado, Katie suggested that consumers shouldn’t shop in “low-volume, high-populated areas” and that they should avoid patronizing secondhand places “outside of their fiscal demographic."
 
The overarching reason for these sensitivities is that some desirable-brand item that we buy in a thrift shop as a ‘little luxury’ might be the same item that a more impoverished person would buy out of necessity.  As consumers, we are often accustomed to there being plenty of products for everyone, but Katie reminded me that what we buy secondhand may be taking something away from someone who needs it more.  
 
Of course, not every product lends itself to a profitable aftermarket, but many do.  Consequently, for the sake of environmental, financial, and social stewardship, more companies and consumers should consider how they might responsively market and purchase preowned products.  Whether new or used, items that offer value to buyers and profit to sellers, can be considered “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
28 Comments

Help Wanted, Marketing to Prospective Employees

7/31/2021

8 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

While eating lunch at a favorite restaurant recently, my son and I noticed that the menu was much shorter than before.  The Italian eatery was no longer even offering one of its standard selections, pizza!  After our meal, I asked our waitress about the simpler spread.  She explained it was because they couldn’t hire enough cooks to prepare additional entrées.
 
You’ve likely seen signs in restaurants, ads from retailers, and posts on social media from other service providers announcing pressing needs for more employees.  While the recent labor shortage has been a boon to job seekers, it’s been a bummer for many businesses that find themselves perpetually understaffed.  However, firms can turn their current recruitment challenges into opportunities if they rethink how they market to prospective employees.
 
Like many professors, I’ve invested considerable time helping students get jobs, both internships during college and career positions after graduation.  What has for decades been largely an employer-oriented sellers’ market has suddenly shifted.  Now employers are increasingly competing for new hires.  As a result, it behooves businesses to go back to school and brush up on their marketing, not to attract customers but to contract employees.
 
In a few days, I'll participate on a panel for that purpose, joining three others to engage employers in a discussion of how to recruit college students and recent grads more effectively.
 
Being both a marketer and a college faculty member, I hope to offer a unique perspective, mainly based on two-plus decades helping get students gainfully employed.  I’m fairly familiar with Gen Z’s preferences in the recruiting process.  So, in case there’s any overlap between the panel audience and this one--spoiler alert!  I’m sharing below my recommendations for more effective marketing to prospective employees.
 
It’s probably not surprising that this marketer’s suggestions flow from the 4 Ps.  Although there are several strategies I could encourage for each marketing mix component, I’ve singled out two for each, not because they’re necessarily the most important ones but because they’re the features/benefits that young prospective employees increasingly seek, which means they’re ones upon which employers need to double down:
 
Product 
  • Social Responsibility:  Gen Z’s desire to align themselves with organizations that make a difference is well-documented.  Its members want to have a positive impact on the world, and one of the best ways to do so is to work for “purpose-driven companies.”  Firms should be able to communicate clearly and concisely to prospective employees how they help people and the planet.

  • Attractive Organizational Culture:  Decades ago, when I was entering the job market for the first time, company culture was not on my radar screen.  Now most new hires want to know 'what it will be like' to work for a firm.  I often hear them offer desired descriptors like “low-stress,” “friendly,” and even “fun.”  Interviewers should be prepared to talk about their organization’s culture and point to specific examples.  They also need to model it in their interactions with prospects.

Picture

 Place 
  • Work On-Line:  Through the pandemic, where work occurs has become an increasingly important point of interest.  Many people with whom I’ve spoken have suggested that they’ve enjoyed working from home; in fact, they’d like to continue to work remotely at least some of the time.  As might be expected, most Gen Zs are extremely comfortable with digital technology and very used to interacting with others virtually.
  • Work In-person:  At the same time, people also mention that they miss the impromptu interactions that would occur in office hallways and around the proverbial watercooler.  In taking jobs, many new grads move away from family and friends, so they’re hoping to make new, meaningful connections.  One recent graduate told me it’s harder for her to develop those relationships just from online interactions.  So, it seems that employers should provide at least some opportunities for face-to-face interaction.
 
Promotion 
  • Timely Communication: This past spring a senior student of mine was interviewing with an organization.  The process was going well, but more than once he expressed concern, e.g., “It’s been almost two weeks since my second interview and I haven’t heard from them.”  Granted, two weeks is not an unreasonable wait, but employers should be sensitive to the fact that more job seekers today have multiple options.  So, to not miss the opportunity to make a great hire, firms should at a minimum make clear their timeframe for follow-up communication and even better, move the recruiting process along a little more quickly than it has gone in the past.
  • Transparent Communication:  In keeping with the previous imperative, many college students tell me how much they value transparent communication.  Sometimes I push back and ask, “Do you really want to know everything an organization does?”  They reply, “No, but we don’t like when they hide important things or try to put a positive spin on something negative.”  In short, they want organizations to be open, honest, and genuine.  Companies should be careful to model these values in their communication with prospective employees.   
 
Price 
  • Appropriate Pay:  Professional sports fans often hear of pro athletes wanting to “get paid.”  It’s usually when a star’s current contract doesn’t compensate them in proportion to their productivity.  College-age prospective employees don’t have contracts, but they should ‘get paid’ in the sense that they shouldn’t be lowballed; rather, they should be offered competitive salaries and benefits at if not above market averages.  These young people aren’t looking to squeeze out every dollar they can, but they do have debt to pay and don’t want to have to live paycheck-to-paycheck.  Similarly, unpaid internships should be a thing of the past.
  • Work-Life Balance:  The greatest resource employees give organizations is their time.  Although the prospective employees with whom I speak are very willing to work hard, they rightly want to have sufficient time for other needs and interests outside of the office.  Employers should monitor and encourage healthy work-life balance.  They also should be ready to tell prospective employees about their systems for maintaining an agreeable life equilibrium.    
 
Some sectors, like healthcare, already know well the challenges of employee recruitment and retention:  For years, hospitals have labored to hire enough doctors and nurses.  Now, many employers share their pain.  The above prescriptions can bring some recruitment relief while also helping firms feel better, knowing that they’re practicing “Mindful Marketing.”



Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
8 Comments

Corporate Social Responsibility Everyone Should See

9/19/2020

7 Comments

 
Talking pill bottles

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University - 
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

By now we all have a story of how the pandemic has negatively impacted us or those we love.  Life has become more difficult for everyone, but for people with disabilities, daily living can be exponentially harder.  One business, however, has made it its mission to meet such needs in an unforeseen way.
 
Two years ago I wrote about Starbuck’s innovative efforts to serve deaf consumers through a specially-designed store in Washington, D.C.  Among its unique attributes, the store featured an open layout, low-glare surfaces, and employees who knew American Sign Language (ASL).
 
Even as I, a non-coffee-drinker, applauded the company’s ingenuity and initiative, I could imagine some cynicism about the social responsibility:  “That’s nice, but Starbuck’s is a luxury people can live without.  Who’s meeting the real needs of people with disabilities?”  A former student of mine recently gave me a great answer to that question.
 
I first heard of Accessible Pharmacy a few weeks ago when that former student, Jason Polansky, told me he was applying to the company for a job.  Jason, who wrote a guest blog for Mindful Marketing about a smart cane and who was my coauthor on a CommPRO article titled, “How Serving Blind Consumers Creates Competitive Advantage,” is completely blind.
 
Fast forward to a few days ago when I received from Jason the good news that Accessible Pharmacy had hired him to be its Director of Business Development for Central Pennsylvania.  It’s great that the company identified Jason as an ideal candidate for the position and offered it to him.  However, Accessible Pharmacy’s commitment to blind people runs much deeper than its hiring.  Its mission is to make a life-sustaining service safely available to a group of consumers who are consistently underserved.


Accessible Pharmacy logo

According to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC), in the United States in 2015, there were 1.02 million blind people, i.e., who had vision impairment of 20/200 or worse.  Furthermore, 3.22 million Americans had lesser impairment as measured by “the best-corrected visual acuity in the better-seeing eye.”  These numbers are expected to double by 2050 due to an aging U.S. population and more frequent incidents of diabetes and other chronic diseases associated with vision loss.
 
That’s a significant and growing portion of the population that could benefit from all kinds of products tailored to its unique needs.  As Starbuck’s example illustrated, some business models already have been adapted, but largely missing has been a solution for one of the most critical human needs:  medicine.
 
People who are blind take most of the same medicine others do, but for individuals who don’t drive, there’s the challenge of traveling to a pharmacy to pick up a prescription.  Even more significant, blind people can’t easily read the instructions on a bottle of ibuprofen or see that the prescription pill they’re about to ingest is the right one. 
 
According to a 2018 CNBC article, between 250,000 and 440,000 people die each year in the United States because of medical errors, making them the third-leading cause of death, behind only heart disease and cancer.  Unfortunately, the inability to see the medicine one is taking contributes to those statistics.
 
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.”  Medicine certainly is supposed to make people stronger, but wrongly medicating can kill a person, especially someone who can’t see the medicine they’re taking.
 
Enter Accessible Pharmacy, “a comprehensive, home delivery pharmacy service specializing in the needs of the blind and low vision community and their families,” which claims to be “the only provider of its kind.”
 
For many companies, asserting such exclusivity is merely a matter of marketing communication, i.e., they simply say that they “specialize” and do nothing to support the claim.  Accessible Pharmacy is different.  Its ‘product features’ back up its brand promise.  For instance, the Pharmacy offers:
  • Patient education and consultation
  • Disease monitoring via teleconference
  • Cognitive behavior assistance
  • Medication regimen management
  • Customized packaging
  • Presorted disposable pill organizers by week or by month
  • Braille and large-print labels
  • ScripTalk: unique RFID tag labels that work with consumer devices to convert text to speech
  • Home delivery of prescriptions, as well as over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and supplements
 
In researching and writing about corporate social responsibility (CSR), I’ve often considered whether there’s a best way for companies to give back.  Although I believe donation (giving money to worthy causes) and volunteerism (encouraging employees to serve those in need) are both important approaches, the most effective CSR occurs within a business model that marries financial goals with societal good.

Picture

In other words, positive social impact is woven into the very fabric of the business’s operations.  Accessible Pharmacy is an excellent example of such integrated CSR.
 
Yes, the firm is a for-profit company with income expectations—a fact that might give some people pause.  But should we be wary of Accessible Pharmacy making money by serving blind people?
 
Of course, there are other ways that organizations doing social good can be funded, for instance by donors and by government.  Such models play important roles in addressing societal needs; however, what happens when donors decide to give elsewhere or politicians elect to underwrite other needs?
 
The point is, CSR that’s integrated into a for-profit firm’s value chain is highly sustainable.  As long as both producer and consumer benefit, the mutually valuable exchange can continue indefinitely.
 
When I asked Jason what excites him most about his new position, he mentioned working with people with disabilities and using his marketing background to make a positive impact on their lives.  He undoubtedly will enjoy both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from his work, as he should.  So should his employer.
 
It’s very challenging to start and run a successful business.  It’s even harder to maintain one that addresses pressing societal needs as part of its mission.  Accessible Pharmacy does just that, which make it a clear example of “Mindful Marketing.”


Mindful Matrix
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
7 Comments

Live Streaming Funerals

10/18/2019

35 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

What will you watch on TV tonight?  Maybe you’ll catch a movie on cable or stream season five of your favorite sitcom.  Or, maybe you’ll tune-in to Uncle Walter’s wake.  That’s right:  Some funeral homes now make it possible for mourners to stay home, thanks to live streaming of memorial services.
 
Live streaming has been around for more than 20 years, but it’s more recently that funeral homes have entered the virtual realm.  Some say the delay is due to the funeral industry being more conservative than most.  It also might be because those most in-tune with the newer technology tend to be the Netflix-watching younger generations, who probably aren’t the biggest drivers of demand for funeral services.
 
Every year in the United States, around 19,000 funeral directors conduct approximately 2.4 million memorial services, yet some estimate as few as 20% of funeral homes offer streaming services.  But, why does anyone want to watch the memorialization of someone they knew online?
 
The main reason is simple logistics.  As people find new jobs or move for other reasons, family members and friends are “increasingly scattered around the country—and the world,” making it hard to travel to far-away cities and towns for funerals.  Also, some people have health conditions or other constraints that make travel very difficult, if not impossible.
 
Our family appreciated live streaming firsthand recently, not for a funeral but for our son’s orchestra concert.  Given that he’s enrolled in college over 10 hours from home, it’s not possible for us to attend most performances, but we were able to watch the first concert of the fall in real-time, thanks to the school live streaming the event.
 
Still, a funeral is very different than a concert, a sports contest, or other audience-driven entertainment.  Should such a somber event be so widely shared?  Is it disrespectful to ‘digitize the deceased?’
 
Whether it’s a wedding or a wake, almost anything can be filmed tastelessly or tactfully.  Small ceiling-mounted cameras and wireless technology are some of the ways that videoing can happen unobtrusively.  Plus, in the age of social media and selfies, most people are pretty used to cameras and picture-taking.

Of course, a primary consideration in deciding whether to live stream a funeral should be the final wishes of the departed—Did they want/not want their last remembrances broadcast?  Short of any such directive, the decision lies with loved ones, who, in reality, are the ones the memorial service is truly for.     
 
For family members and/or close friends of the deceased, a funeral service is a very important part of the grieving process.  They’re the ones dealing most with shock, grief, and worry.  They also probably want to honor the memory of someone about whom they cared deeply.  Key questions, then, are:  What brings loved ones comfort and what helps them commemorate?
 
The most likely answer is other people.  When tragedy strikes or there’s an occasion to celebrate, we usually want to be with others.  It’s at those times that we really appreciate the presence of people.   
 
That need for social support reminds me of a funeral I attended last March.  A dear friend of mine, with whom I had served on a church leadership team, played basketball and softball, and socialized with our spouses, passed away suddenly at age 58.  I was shocked to hear the news and imagined that his wife and two children in their twenties were devastated.
 
Our careers had taken us to different parts of the state, but I wanted to attend his memorial service, even though it was on a weekday and about two hours away.  I drove to the church and reflected on my friends’ impactful life during what was a very moving service.  I also spoke briefly with his children and wife, giving her a hug and telling her how much I had appreciated her husband.
 

Picture

A couple of months later, I received a handwritten note from her in which she said how happy she was that I was able to come to the service and how much it meant to see an old friend from a special time in their lives.  I had barely spoken with her at the funeral, so it seemed that just my being there made a big difference for her.
 
That experience makes me wonder whether live streaming funerals keeps people from being present at times when their presence is needed most?  I doubt there’s data to shed light on that question, so I’ll try to answer it based on the reading I’ve done in preparation for this piece.
 
Journalists who have spoken with funeral directors suggest that live streams are most important to those who are unable to attend funerals because of factors like distance, cost, and health issues.  No one mentions people who could attend services in person, choosing to watch live streams instead.
 
Such decision-making also resonates with my own experience.  When my friend passed away suddenly, I really wanted to be there, and thankfully I was able to.  I’m not sure if his memorial service was live streamed, but even if it was, my choice would not have changed.  I suspect most people feel similarly—For someone important to them, they would like to be there in person, if at all possible.
 
Live streaming funerals is almost certainly a win-win:  The opportunity to watch from afar doesn’t dissuade people from attending but gives those who can’t travel the ability to also experience a very meaningful moment.  Even when it involves death, digital technology can deliver “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
35 Comments

Walmart Says Goodbye to Greeters

5/3/2019

5 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

When you walk into a Walmart this month, you won’t see someone who’s been a fixture at the front of its stores for decades—the greeter.  The world’s largest retailer’s decision to eliminate the iconic position quickly drew harsh criticism, which seemed to take the company by surprise and has made many wonder:  Was Walmart right to send loyal employees into unemployment?

In mid-February this year, the big box retailer informed employees that effective April 26, the greeter role would be replaced by an expanded “customer host” position, requiring a greater range of job skills and physical demands like being able “to lift 25-pound (11-kilogram) packages, climb ladders and stand for long periods.”
 
Those who have worked in organizations for any significant time know it’s not unusual for positions to be added, deleted, and changed.  What’s different about Walmart’s move is that its 1.5 million U.S. associates make it  the nation’s largest private employer, and many of those who have filled the greeter role have been people with disabilities.
 
Given that unique employment impact, it’s understandable that many have not liked the change.  Fred Wirth, whose son Joe uses a wheelchair and who worked as a Walmart greeter before losing his job, claimed the company’s plan was “just a systematic way of getting rid of all the disabled people.”
 
Could Wirth’s claim be true?  Is the world’s largest retailer intentionally trying to displace workers with disabilities?
 
To answer that question, it’s helpful to understand the legal context for any such agenda.  Title I of the American’s with Disabilities Act “prohibits covered employers from discriminating against people with disabilities in all employment-related activities, including hiring, pay, benefits, firing and promotions.”
 
Organizations aren’t expected to employ people who cannot perform the functions of a job.  However, firms are required to provide “reasonable accommodation” for individuals with disabilities.  For instance, a company could modify the height of a service desk in order to allow an individual in a wheelchair to more comfortably interact with customers.
 
To its credit, Walmart has tried to transition disabled greeters into different positions and otherwise accommodate them.  It began to do so in 2015, when it started a pilot program that introduced the customer host position, who not only greets customers but also keeps the entrances safe and clean, assists with returns, and checks receipts as needed.  During this program, the company claims it was able to help 80% of affected associates find new positions, many involving promotions.
 
Greg Foran, president and CEO of Walmart's U.S. stores, says that it’s the company’s goal to offer “appropriate accommodations that will enable these associates to continue in other roles with their store.”  For instance, the company was able to offer jobs in self-checkout to three longtime greeters, all of whom have cerebral palsy.
 
Unfortunately, not every former greeter could be reasonably accommodated or had skills that would readily translate to other work.  For these reasons, Walmart has extended the 60 day transition period in order to allow extra time for greeters with disabilities to find other jobs within the company.
 
Besides what seems to be a good faith effort to continue to employ individuals with disabilities, it’s worth noting that Walmart historically has been one of few employers to actively hire people with disabilities.  It’s easy to criticize Walmart for its recent move away from greeters, but how many associates with disabilities do we see working in Target or most other retailers?
 
It’s also important to recognize retail’s great state of flux.  The sector has become extremely competitive, largely due to e-commerce and online giant Amazon, which has helped precipitate store closings for some of the greatest retailers ever, e.g., Sears, Kmart, and Toys R Us.
 
Furthermore, when consumers do shop in-store, they are increasingly greeted by touchscreen kiosks and self-checkouts, not people.  The grocery store where our family shops has a robot, rather than a person, roaming the floors to look for spills and dropped products.
 
Most of these technological advancements are driven by firms’ desires for greater efficiency and effectiveness.  There also are times for most of us when it’s just easier to deal with a machine than a person.  Nothing against bank tellers, but most people probably prefer to get cash from an ATM and to have funds deposited electronically into their accounts.
 
In the digital age, most people also probably don’t care about being greeted as soon as they enter a big box retailer.  For some, it may even be a turn-off.
 
One of the greatest gifts any of us can be given is a job, but employment should be more than biding time to get a paycheck.  Work should be meaningful to the person doing it, as well as to the company paying for it and to others ‘consuming’ it.  The position of Walmart store greeter once served a more useful purpose, but it has outlived its useful life.
 
You probably wouldn’t want to sit or stand in the same place, day after day, repeating over and over, “Welcome to Walmart” to largely apathetic passersby.  I wouldn’t.  Most people, including individuals with disabilities, are capable of much more.
 
Even certain advocates for the disabled have applauded Walmart’s efforts to transition greeters to other positions.  For instance, senior disability specialist at National Disability Rights Network Cheryl-Bates-Harris says, “Walmart is now opening the door to actually help individuals realize their full employment potential.”
 
So, it’s very unlikely that Walmart is intentionally trying to displace disabled workers.  More likely, it wants to remain viable in a fiercely competitive retail arena, which will, in turn, allow it to continue to employ millions of people, including those with disabilities.
 
Sometimes organizations need to make tough decisions that negatively impact certain people in the short-run.  However, offering meaningful work that provides valuable service to others in the long-run equals “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
5 Comments

How a Blind Marketing Student Sees a Smart Cane

3/8/2019

32 Comments

 
Picture

by Jason Polansky, Marketing Major at Messiah College

I enjoy each day without something that many take for granted—eyesight.  To safely navigate a sight-friendly word, a blind person develops other aptitudes, like a keener sense of hearing, and learns to use technology, such as a smartphone with GPS.  Now one company has developed a hi-tech version of a tool blind folks have used forever—the cane.  The thought of a ‘smart cane’ is intriguing, but is it Mindful Marketing?    
 
A few years ago, members of Turkey’s Young Guru Academy (YGA), a nonprofit organization aimed at assisting disadvantaged members of society, began to develop WeWALK, a smart cane that uses ultrasonic sensors, microphones, and speakers to help individuals with visual impairments “see obstacles.”  More specifically, a WeWALK hardware unit attaches to the handle of a blind person's cane, allowing him/her to more easily navigate outdoor environments.
 
Despite its recent start, the company has rapidly gained a social media following on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.  The firm also has been featured on CNN International, NowThis, Forbes, Dr. Oz, and certain New York City television outlets.
 
What features and benefits does WeWALK  offer that have spurred its rapid rise?  The following list summarizes key parts of the new product’s value proposition:
 
  • vibration and an ultrasonic sensor to detect overhead and chest-level obstacles, such as hanging tree branches and telephone poles
  • a compass, accelerometer, and gyroscope for GPS technology and Google Maps integration
  • Bluetooth connectivity, to be paired with an iOS or Android smartphone and integration with apps such as Google Maps
  • touch controls that allow users to access their smart phone via the device itself, without having to remove the phone from a pocket, purse, or backpack
  • a microphone and speaker for voice control and Amazon Alexa integration
  • support for Turkish and English languages
  • approximately five hours of battery life
  • charging via a micro USB port
  • weight of 430 grams
  • length of approximately one foot
  • open platform for app developers to add integrations with the device
  • purchase price of $349 through Indiegogo
 
I applaud the idea and the innovation behind WeWALK and appreciate several of its strengths.  For instance, overhead obstacle detection is a feature that I would find helpful. Oftentimes when I go hiking, or even when I am just walking down the sidewalk in a residential area, I never know when I am going to encounter an overhead object like a tree branch or some low-hanging sign.
 
In addition, the ability to connect to a smartphone via Bluetooth could save time and provide convenience by not having to hold a phone in one hand and a cane in the other.  Allowing a free hand is a plus.
 
However, WeWALK also has some significant limitations.  First, it does not attach to all types of canes that blind people use. I personally prefer a light-weight, rigid, National Federation of the Blind white cane with a metal tip, but WeWALK does not currently attach to this type of cane. Most of the canes that the device attaches to are much heavier and bulkier in nature. However, AppleVis does say that the firm has a goal of attaching to every popular cane in the world.
 
Another concern is how well the product can withstand the elements. Due to it being an outdoor product filled with many electronic components, one must be aware of rain during all seasons, as well as winter snow and summer heat. A useful addition to the product would be a protective case of some sort that would not muffle the sound from the speaker.
 
Speaking of the speaker, I would be interested in knowing how much volume can be produced. Outdoor environments can be quite noisy, due to traffic, construction, and other noises that may prevent the user from being able to hear its audio feedback while holding the cane at arm’s length.
 
It’s also worth noting that a five-hour battery life may not be enough to get someone through an entire day of traveling, especially while on vacation or otherwise being a tourist.  Maybe this deficiency could be remedied by charging through an extra external battery that the user could carry in his or her backpack or purse. However, that power supplement would mean a rather long cord attaching the battery to the device, as well as extra weight.
 
One also must acknowledge the limitations inherent in any GPS product for the Blind.  A GPS won’t tell a pedestrian when it’s safe to cross the street, the path to take through construction, nor will GPS directly lead the user across a large parking lot. Just about any blind person who is an experienced traveler would say that possessing strong mobility skills and knowing how to travel safely is essential before attempting to use any GPS product.
 
Just as when driving a car, a GPS will tell the driver how to get to the desired destination most of the time, but it does not know the rules of the road. It does not tell the driver to stop at a stop sign or obey the speed limit. Thus, I would not recommend this product to a blind person who does not possess adequate cane travel skills in the first place or who is fearful of traveling in unfamiliar environments.
 
Beyond the preceding limitations, a big turn-off for me is some of the language used on the firm’s about page. The first line says “WeWALK is the world's most revolutionary smart cane developed for the visually impaired people.”  Using the word “the” before “visually impaired people” is a rather patronizing way of describing the target market, just as it is insensitive to use “the” before the name of a racial group.  Furthermore, I don’t believe “blind” is a negative word, and I feel it’s fine to use “blind” when describing people who are not completely blind.
 
A better way to phrase the webpage phrase may be:

“WeWALK is the world's most revolutionary smart cane developed for blind and visually impaired individuals, allowing for greater independence and mobility through innovative technology,”
or

“WeWALK is the world's most revolutionary smart cane, strategically built with the blind in mind, combining the white cane that you have known and loved for decades with ground-breaking technological advancements.”

 
In any case, the company should seriously rethink this use of language as it moves forward.
 
Overall, WeWALK is a decent and well-intentioned product that shouldn’t cause any serious harm.  Still, at a price of $349, there are plenty of ways in which the product must improve before it can truly compete within the marketplace of technology and other tools targeted for blind and visually impaired individuals.  Sometime in the future, WeWALK may be Mindful, but at this point I see the smart cane as “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
32 Comments

Betting on Sports Gambling

12/28/2018

84 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

What skills did your parents teach you when you were growing up?  Maybe they showed you how to throw a baseball, ride a bike, or drive a car.  If Buffalo Wild Wings launches a major initiative it’s considering, moms and dads might start teaching their kids a whole new set of skills, like how to place bets on teams that will cover spreads in big games.
 
On May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal law that largely outlawed sports betting, thereby giving states authority over such gambling.  Several states, like Delaware and New Jersey, quickly legalized sports betting, and many others are poised to follow suit.  It’s hard to imagine policymakers resisting the revenue potential sports gambling represents, which is the same reason Buffalo Wild Wings is considering adding gambling to its menu.
 
There’s certainly nothing wrong with businesses, including those in the highly-competitive restaurant space, looking for other sources of sales.  Furthermore, some restaurants, like Dave and Buster’s, have become successful by marketing experiences alongside entrées.  But, is playing arcade games the same as putting down money on NFL games?

Leisure is in many ways a personal preference.  Everyone needs to relax and refresh at times, in ways that work for them, so who’s to say someone is wrong to spend his/her free time and money reading books, riding bikes, watching movies, or wagering on the outcomes of soccer games?  If done in excess, most leisure activities could potentially be harmful, but gambling appears to carry a unique set of risks for the gambler and others:
  • Financial Risks:  Problem gamblers can easily fall into a downward spiral of debt, leading them to max out credit cards, fail to make mortgage payments, or even declare bankruptcy.
  • Relationship Risks:  Compulsive gambling can lead to neglect of children, fights with spouses, and divorce.
  • Health Risks: Problem gamblers often suffer from stress, anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression, as well as related physical symptoms such as insomnia, high blood pressure, migraines, and heart disease.  Such individuals also are likely to use alcohol and drugs as coping mechanisms, or even commit suicide.
  • Job Risks:  Individuals with gambling problems are frequently absent from work and less productive when they are on the job, often because of their misuse of company time.
 
While most leisure activities tend not to become obsessions, gambling addiction is very real.  Studies have shown that those addicted to gambling exhibit many of the same behavioral and neurological symptoms that drug addicts experience.  What’s more, bookstores and bicycle shops don’t need to run disclaimers in their ads, “Have a reading addiction?” or “Biking problem?  Call . . .”, but casinos put disclaimers like this one on their websites: “Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER for help.”
 
The following statistics from Addiction Tips help put problem gambling into even clearer perspective:
  • Around 80 percent of the American population gambles in a given year.
  • About five out of 100 gamblers have a gambling addiction.
  • Of those age 14-21, 750,000 are addicted to gambling.
  • Most of those addicted to gambling are between the ages of 20 and 30.
  • Over 6% of students in U.S. colleges gamble regularly.
  • Gambling addiction is positively correlated with criminal activity, including violent crimes.

Gambling is a widespread and risky activity; however, the National Council on Problem Gambling acknowledges that “most adults who choose to gamble are able to do responsibly.”  With the legalization of sports betting, gambling activity is likely to explode, so why shouldn’t Buffalo Wild Wings add sports gambling to its menu?  That’s the question longtime ESPN host Mike Greenberg asked during an August 18, 2018 broadcast of his daily sports talk program Get Up!:
 
 “This doesn’t seem that complicated, unless I’m missing something . . . It seems like a lot more people will come [to Buffalo Wild Wings, if it adds gambling].  I don’t see any reason not to and I see every reason to . . . I am one who is in favor of gambling in a significant way, so I don’t see any downside to this.  Tell me what I’m missing if there is something.”
 
Here are some things that Greenberg may be overlooking about sports, gambling, and Buffalo Wild Wings:
 
  • Sports are extremely widespread:  There are over 440 internationally recognized sports and more than 8,000 indigenous sports, not necessarily recognized internationally. That pervasiveness means a virtually endless stream of easily-found betting opportunities.
  • Sports inspire passion among a very wide range of people:  Few things stir as much interest and excitement as sports, or enjoy such broad demographic appeal: men and women from toddlers to senior citizens love sports.  The 2018 Super Bowl drew over 103 million viewers in the U.S. alone, which provides some specific support of that extensive popularity. 
  • Gambling can be destructive and addictive: Several paragraphs above have already detailed many risks associated with gambling as well as its potential for addiction.
  • Buffalo Wild Wings is really big:  It’s the largest sports bar chain and the 17th largest restaurant chain in the U.S.  In 2017, it had sales of over $3.9 billion across 1,206 stores, which means Buffalo Wild Wings could expand sports betting across the country about as fast as any company  could.
  • Buffalo Wild Wings targets families:  The firm’s website suggests “Wednesday is for Family,” while promoting $2.99 kids’ meals from 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm from its seven-item, customizable kids’ menu.  Customers also perceive the restaurant as family-friendly, posting online comments like “Yes, this place [is] definitely suited [for] families,” “Fun sports environment with fun bar atmosphere and family restaurant at the same time,” and “an awesome family friendly restaurant.”
  • Buffalo Wild Wings targets college students:  The chain currently offers special promotions with 16 different universities, including the University of Alabama where football fans can get a free order of snack-size wings if Alabama records three or more sacks in a game.  A Google search of “Buffalo Wild Wings student discount” returns numerous hits of other college and universities that have negotiated special student discounts, such as one giving students at Northern Michigan University 10% off food items on Thursdays.  Also, the website Student Discount Program calls Buffalo Wild Wings “the ultimate place to get together with your friends, watch sports, drink beer and eat wings.”
 
Certainly, there are many people who gamble without causing serious harm to themselves or others.  Unfortunately, there also are 5 -7 million Americans, according to the National Council on Problem Gambling, who meet one or more of the diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling, thus experiencing at least some of the undesirable outcomes mentioned above.  These numbers are likely to increase dramatically, as more states legalize betting on activities that have some of the broadest and most impassioned followings—sports.  People who don’t already gamble are probably more likely to start if they can bet on something they enjoy and understand.  For many people, that something is sports.
 
Because of its size and influence with sports fans, Buffalo Wild Wings would accelerate the growth of sports betting like few other companies could, should it choose to move forward with gambling.   However, that probability is only one concern.  Another is the impact Buffalo Wilds Wings would likely have on young people and their betting behavior.
 
As described earlier, Buffalo Wild Wings targets college students, many of whom love sports and already gamble.  These coeds will be easily won over to sports betting, although they can ill-afford it, both because of time (many should study more) and money (many college students have considerable debt).  However, an even younger demographic is at risk, should Buffalo Wild Wings begin sports betting.
 
As mentioned above, the chain also targets families with young children.  While it’s unlikely that any kids would place wagers at the restaurant, children do carefully observe and emulate the behavior of adults.  It’s sad to imagine so many children, most of whom love sports for the pure joy of playing or watching, being socialized into gambling on games.  Greenberg's Get Up! co-host Jalen Rose aptly expressed this sentiment as he said, "I don't want my grandpa teaching me about gambling at [age] seven."

 
It will be hard for Buffalo Wild Wings or any organization to resist the revenue that can come from entering the growing market for sports gambling.  Hopefully, however, the restaurant chain will recognize the unique influence it wields, especially on the lives of young people, and avoid betting on a strategy that can be considered “Single-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
84 Comments

Starbuck's Learns Sign Language

11/16/2018

19 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

If you’ve gone to a really loud concert, gotten a bad ear infection, or had a clogged ear canal, you know a little about hearing loss.  Over five percent of the world’s population has permanent “disabling hearing loss,” yet few organizations consider those consumers’ special needs.  One multinational corporation, however, has embraced this unique group of customers in a way that should make every company listen.
 
A few weeks ago, Starbuck’s opened its first Signing Store in the United States.  Located at 6th and H Street in Washington, D.C., the store first appears to be a typical Starbuck’s, but a closer look reveals a unique coffee house, specially designed for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
 
For instance, the store features a more open layout and low-glare surfaces in order to facilitate visual communication.  Store employees, 20-25 of whom are themselves deaf or hard of hearing, are fluent in American Sign Language (ASL).  Deaf baristas wear “ASL aprons embroidered by a Deaf supplier,” while those who can hear sport “I Sign” pins.  The store also contains some high-tech advancements to ease ordering, such as “digital notepads and a console with two-way keyboards for back-and-forth typed conversations.”
 
Those adaptations sound nice, but should a global icon do so much to accommodate a relatively small number of people who tend to be scattered throughout the population?  With over 28,000 retail stores, Starbuck’s is by far the “largest coffeehouse company in the world,” as well as the third largest fast food restaurant, behind only McDonald’s and Subway.  The firm employs about 277,000 people and has annual revenues of over $24 billion.  In light of such scale, isn’t it an unnecessary distraction to design and operate a solitary store that’s so specialized?
 
First, it’s important to note that Starbuck’s Signing Store is strategically located near Gallaudet University, “a federally chartered private university for the education of the deaf and hard of hearing.”  Gallaudet enrolls over 1,100 students, and if they are like other college students, which they undoubtedly are, most probably love to drink coffee.  So, Starbuck’s has a ready-made, geographically concentrated target market, within a short walk of its store.
 
A second consideration is that a customized coffee shop is something that’s replicable.  In fact, the Washington, D.C. outlet is Starbuck’s second Signing Store.  The company opened the first one in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2016.  Perhaps there are suitable spots for similar stores in other parts of the U.S. or the world.  In American alone, there are nearly 50 residential schools for the deaf. 
 
Likewise, there may be opportunities to develop customized stores for individuals with other special needs.  For instance, there are nearly 40 schools for the blind in the U.S.  It also may be possible to tailor stores for certain fields of study, e.g., music or visual arts.

Third, Starbuck’s Signing store has produced some very positive PR for the company.  A Google search of “Starbuck’s Signing store” returns over 8 million hits, including many complimentary news pieces in major media like USA TODAY, CBS News, Fortune, and the Washington Post.  The National Association for the Deaf also has praised the company's efforts to educate and enrich the lives of its constituents and many others.
 
Fourth, and perhaps most important, the Signing Store fits squarely within Starbuck’s mission, values, and goals.  The company claims an “ongoing commitment to inclusion, accessibility and diversity,” which is broadly reflected in its mission statement: “To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time."  More specifically, the first of Starbuck’s four core values encourages “Creating a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.”  This value is evident in the company’s 2018 goals, which include ongoing global social responsibility that creates “meaningful impact in the communities it serves.”

Although it’s unlikely that customized stores will ever be profitable on the scale of its traditional outlets, Starbuck’s should still be able to leverage the specialized model for meaningful growth.  Moreover, with every store opened to serve disadvantaged people groups, the company builds tremendous community goodwill and gains very positive global publicity.  For all these reasons, Starbuck’s Signing store is an emblem of “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
19 Comments
<<Previous
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly